X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: <13brv3@bellsouth.net> Received: from imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net ([205.152.59.71] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.5) with ESMTP id 1020259 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:18:58 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=205.152.59.71; envelope-from=13brv3@bellsouth.net Received: from ibm66aec.bellsouth.net ([65.6.194.9]) by imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050624131813.DOTH2460.imf23aec.mail.bellsouth.net@ibm66aec.bellsouth.net> for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:18:13 -0400 Received: from rd ([65.6.194.9]) by ibm66aec.bellsouth.net with ESMTP id <20050624131813.MAJG5308.ibm66aec.bellsouth.net@rd> for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:18:13 -0400 From: "Russell Duffy" <13brv3@bellsouth.net> To: "'Rotary motors in aircraft'" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: PP debate was Re: Single PP HP? Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 08:18:15 -0500 Message-ID: <000d01c578bf$2e0c1e80$6101a8c0@rd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000E_01C57895.45361680" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C57895.45361680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I have the same but haven't removed the deflector out of the exhaust = port yet. Any idea on the difference with or without? Hi Georges, This is another one of those eternal debates on the list. I think the consensus is that they must cost some power, but maybe not even enough = to notice. They are said to make a noticeable difference in exhaust noise though, which is a good thing. So far, I've only used the turbo = housings, which don't have the splitter. I sure wish I had a big Lottery check, so I could install a dyno, and = spend enough time playing with these things to figure it all out. Short of = being able to do that, all we can do is collect any info we can from the = sources we have. Unfortunately, this data rarely compares directly with what we need, and by the time we try to mentally convert the conditions of the = test, the results are skeptical at best. =20 One example of this is Lynn's numbers for ported and PP engines. While = I really do appreciate the data, it wasn't quite the gold mine of info I = was hoping for. There are just too many variables, such as racing choke limitations, which I can't account for. I'm afraid I still don't know = what the real difference between a side and peripheral port engine would be. I have to admit that I'm starting to give some thought to building a = test stand, and having some way to measure power. Perhaps just a good = mixture monitor, a big variable pitch IVO prop, and reliable fuel flow = measurement. Short of having a real dyno, I'm not sure what else I could do. Cheers, Rusty (buying more lotto tickets) =20 =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C57895.45361680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message

I have the same but haven't removed the deflector out = of the=20 exhaust port yet. Any idea on the difference with or = without?

Hi=20 Georges,

This is = another one of=20 those eternal debates on the list.  I think the consensus is that = they must=20 cost some power, but maybe not even enough to notice.  They are = said=20 to make a noticeable difference in exhaust noise though, which is a = good=20 thing.  So far, I've only used the turbo housings, which don't have = the=20 splitter.

I sure = wish I had a big=20 Lottery check, so I could install a dyno, and spend enough time=20 playing with these things to figure it all out.  Short of = being able=20 to do that, all we can do is collect any info we can from the sources we = have.  Unfortunately, this data rarely compares directly = with=20 what we need, and by the time we try to mentally convert the conditions=20 of the test, the results are skeptical at=20 best.  

One = example of this is=20 Lynn's numbers for ported and PP engines.  While I really do = appreciate the=20 data, it wasn't quite the gold mine of info I was hoping for.  = There are=20 just too many variables, such as racing choke limitations, = which I=20 can't account for.  I'm afraid I still don't know = what the real=20 difference between a side and peripheral port engine would = be. =20    

I have to admit that I'm starting = to give some=20 thought to building a test stand, and having some way to measure = power. =20 Perhaps just a good mixture monitor, a big variable pitch IVO prop, and = reliable=20 fuel flow measurement.  Short of having a real dyno, I'm not sure = what else=20 I could do.

Cheers,

Rusty (buying more lotto = tickets) =20

 

 

------=_NextPart_000_000E_01C57895.45361680--